Agronomy Research 10 (1–2), 341–350, 2012
Physico-chemical and antioxidant properties of new sweet
cherry cultivars from Iaşi, Romania
S. Sîrbu1*, M. Niculaua2 and O. Chiriţă3
1
Department of Genetic and Breeding, Fruit Growing Research Station, Romanian
Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Voineşti Road, 175, Iaşi, Romania;
2
Research Centre for Oenology, Romanian Academy, Sadoveanu Alley, 9, Iaşi,
Romania
3
Department of Horticultural Technologies, Faculty of Horticulture, University of
Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Sadoveanu Alley, 3, Iaşi, Romania
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract. Fruit samples analyzed in this paper were harvested in 2008 and 2009 from seven
new sweet cherry cultivars, namely ‘Cetăţuia’, ‘Cătălina’, ‘Bucium’, ‘Golia’, ‘Maria’, ‘Ştefan’,
‘Tereza’, as well as from the cultivar ‘Boambe de Cotnari’, which is most widespread in the Iaşi
area, in North-Eastern Romania. The period from flowering to full maturity was between 56–76
days. ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’ were the earliest cultivars, while ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ and
‘Maria’, the latest ripening ones. Fruit width ranged between 17.0 mm and 23.0 mm and fruit
weight ranged from 3.9 g and 7.4 g, but statistical differences between ‘Boambe de Cotnari’,
‘Bucium’, and ‘Maria’ were non-significant. Soluble solids content in different cultivars was
between 14.5 °Brix and 17.8 °Brix. The lowest values were recorded in ‘Golia’ and ‘Ştefan’,
and the highest, in ‘Boambe de Cotnari’. The lowest values of reducing sugar content were in
cultivars ‘Golia’ and ‘Bucium’ (9.5 g 100 g-1 fresh fruit), while ‘Ştefan’ and ‘Cetăţuia’ had the
highest reducing sugar content (12.2 g 100 g-1 fresh fruit). Titratable acidity was between 0.5
and 0.9 g malic acid 100 g-1 fresh fruit, ‘Cătălina’ and ‘Golia’ having the lowest values, while
‘Tereza’ and ‘Bucium’ had the largest. The antioxidant capacity of fruits, expressed as mg
ascorbic acid 100 mL-1 fruit’s methanolic extract, ranged between 4.2 (in ‘Bucium’) and 18.6
(in ‘Ştefan’). There was a non-significant relationship between the number of days from full
bloom until fruit maturation and chemical properties.
Key words: sweet cherry, cultivar, physico-chemical properties, antioxidant capacity
INTRODUCTION
Sweet cherry tree is a species with a great economic importance, due to the
nutritional, technological and commercial value of its fruits (Budan & Grădinariu,
2000; Pérez-Sánchez et al., 2010). The nutritional importance especially depends on
the chemical composition, which represents a major source of antioxidant compounds
(Serrano et al., 2005; Coşofreţ et al., 2006; Beceanu, 2008; Usenik et al., 2008).
Therefore consumers have had an increasing interest in this fruit in recent years
(Battino et al., 2004; Šimunić et al., 2005; Beceanu & Sîrbu, 2007; Khanizadeh et al.,
2007; Sîrbu et al., 2008a). In Romania, of the total fruit production in 2006, sweet
341
cherries represent 7.92%; 96.3% of the production is provided by private plantations
(Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2008). Regarding the trade in sweet cherries, the
largest quantity of imports to Romania is from Turkey, where production is earlier and
has a lower market price; Russia is the Romania’s export partner (Statistical Yearbook
of Romania, 2008).
In the Iaşi area of North-Eastern Romania, the most known cultivars of sweet
cherry are ‘Boambe de Cotnari’, an autochthonous cultivar, ‘Van’ and ‘Stella’, the last
two from the foreign assortment.
As a result of breeding experiments at the Fruit Growing Research Station Iaşi
over the last fifteen years, some new cultivars of sweet cherries were obtained, with
valuable qualitative and productive traits, with different periods of fruit ripening and
various destinations of valorisation.
Physico-chemical properties of the sweet cherry fruit depend on the culture area
(Raimondo et al., 2006), year of harvest (Simard & Charlot, 2000; Petre et al., 2007;
Sîrbu et al., 2008a) or cultivar (Saunier, 1996; Simčič et al., 1998; Serrano et al., 2005;
Roselli et al., 2006; Sîrbu et al., 2008b; Kalyoncu et al., 2009; Long et al., 2008). The
increasing demand for natural antioxidants justifies the search for new sources; the
sweet cherry has high values of antioxidant content (Mohamed et al., 2007; Pellegrini
et al., 2007; Rababah et al., 2011; Prvulović et al., 2011).
In this paper we aimed to determine some physico-chemical and antioxidant
properties of seven of the newest sweet cherry cultivars recently obtained at Fruit
Growing Research Station Iaşi, in comparison with ‘Boambe de Cotnari’, a widespread
cultivar in the region. We also aimed to find the relationships between the studied
physico-chemical parameters and the period of maturation of these cultivars.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using fruit samples harvested in 2008–09, we analysed the commercial maturity
of seven new sweet cherry cultivars (‘Cetăţuia’, ‘Cătălina’, ‘Bucium’, ‘Golia’, ‘Maria’,
‘Ştefan’ and ‘Tereza’), using the cultivar ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ as control. All these
cultivars are cultivated in the experimental field of Fruit Growing Research Station
Iaşi, on mahaleb as rootstock, at a distance of 5 × 4 m, without irrigation and without a
support system for the crown. For each cultivar we determined the number of days
from full bloom until harvest, as well as some physical and chemical properties: fruit
width, weight, stone percentage, soluble solids content, reducing sugar content,
titratable acidity, and antioxidant capacity.
Physical properties. We determined the fruit dimension (i.e. width, in millimeters),
weight (g) and the stone weight (g) using 15 fruits for each cultivar, in three repetitions
(from three different trees). For determining the weight of fruits and dry stones we
used an electronic balance (Radwag, 0.01 g sensitivity). The fruit per stone ratio was
calculated on the basis of their weight.
Chemical properties. Reducing sugar content (RSC) was determined by the Schoorl
method (Ghimicescu 1977). Titratable acidity (TA) was determined by neutralization
with sodium hydroxide solution 0.1 N, to the point of equivalence, using
thymolphthalein as the indicator (Ghimicescu 1977). Soluble solids content (SSC) was
determined with the refractometrical method using a Zeiss hand refractometer.
342
The antioxidant capacity (AC) of the fruits, expressed as mg ascorbic acid
equivalent 100 mL-1 methanolic fruit extract, was determined through the antioxidant
capacity in the water solutions method (ACW) using the Photochem system (Analytik
Jena AG, U.S.A.). For this purpose, we harvested 15 fruits in three repetitions from
each cultivar, at commercial maturity, which were immediately frozen and stored at
-20 °C until analysis. From these samples we made an extract through crushing the
fruit in cold conditions and then put it in contact firstly with 100 mL 5:1 methanol-HCl
solution, and then with another 50 mL 100:1 methanol-HCl solution.
The extract was desiccated at 35 °C into rotary evaporator Heildolph type VV
Micro at 300 rotations per minute and subsequently the volume was adjusted up to
100 mL by adding acidified water up to pH 2. Fruit extract samples were kept until the
analysis in anoxic conditions at -40 °C. Samples were filtered to remove the
suspension and dilutions were prepared in 1:10 to 1:50 ratio with a solvent of Analitik
Jena AG kit. For each measurement, the dilutions were previously homogenized. The
volume of diluted fruit extract sample was 10μL. The pipetting scheme according to
ACW method is presented in Table 1. The diluted samples were analyzed by
Photochem system and the antioxidant capacity of fruits was determined by PCLsoft
software system.
Table 1. Pipetting scheme to antioxidant capacity in water solutions (ACW) method using
Photochem system (R1, R2, R3 = reagents from Analitik Jena AG kit; SL = work solution).
Reagent
R1
R2
R3-SL*
R4-SL*
Sample
Blank
1500 μL
1000 μL
25 μL
0
0
Calibration
1500 μL - x
1000 μL
25 μL
x
0
Determination
ACW sample
1500 μL - y
1000 μL
25 μL
0
y
The system enables the quantification of antioxidant capacity of water-soluble
substances based on photochemiluminescence (PCL). This includes photochemical
excitation to generate free radicals (superoxide anion radicals) followed by
luminescence detection (Popov & Lewin, 1994). The free radicals generated by the
optical excitation of the photosensitizer substance are partly eliminated by the reaction
of antioxidants in the sample to be analyzed.In a measurement cell, the luminescence
of the detection substance (luminol) generated by the remaining radicals is measured
and thus the quantity of antioxidants present in the sample is determined in equivalents
to ascorbic acid (Popov & Lewin, 1994).
The statistical interpretation of experimental data. The program XLSTAT (version
2011) was used for the statistical analyses. The differences between cultivars were
tested by Duncan test (p ≤ 0.05). The relationship between the number of days from
full bloom to maturity (NDFBM) and the physico-chemical properties were calculated
by the Pearson test (p ≤ 0.05), using square root transformed values (after adding 0.5
to each value). The testing of correlation coefficient significance was done by F-test
(Ceapoiu 1968).
343
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The fruit ripening period of cultivars taken under study was between 25 May and
20 June (average 2008–09). The earliest cultivars were ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’ and
the latest was ‘Boambe de Cotnari’.
Table 2. Days from full bloom until harvest in studied period (NDFBM = number of days from
full bloom until maturity; SD = standard deviation).
NDFBM
2008–2009
(average ± SD)
Cultivar
‘Bucium’
‘Cătălina’
‘Maria’
‘Golia’
‘Cetăţuia’
‘Tereza’
‘Boambe de Cotnari’
‘Ştefan’
69 ± 5
63 ± 15
73 ± 8
71 ± 7
56 ± 13
70 ± 5
76 ± 11
69 ± 5
The period from flowering to maturity was between 56 and 76 days (Table 2),
‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’ recorded the lowest values and ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ and
‘Maria’ recorded the highest values.
Table 3. Physical properties of some sweet cherry cultivars (SD = standard deviation. Different
letters after the number corresponds with statistically significant differences for P 5% - Duncan
test).
Average 2008–2009 ± SD
Stone
Cultivar
Fruit width
Fruit weight
Stone weight
Fruit : stone
percentage
(mm)
(g)
(g)
ratio (g g-1)
(%)
‘Bucium’
23.0 a ± 1.1
7.0 ab ± 0.6
0.4 a ± 0.1
5.0 a ± 1.0
20.6 a ± 4.2
‘Cătălina’
19.9 d ± 0.8
5.9 d ± 0.9
0.3 ab ± 0.0
4.5 abc ± 0.5
22.4 a ± 2.3
‘Maria’
22.9 a ± 1.7
6.9 ab ± 1.0
0.2 c ± 0.0
2.9 d ± 0.2
34.6 a ± 2.3
‘Golia’
21.1 b ± 1.7
6.1 cd ± 1.4
0.2 bc ± 0.1
3.6 cd ± 0.1
27.8 a ± 0.7
‘Cetăţuia’
17.0 e ± 1.1
3.9 e ± 1.1
0.1 c ± 0.0
3.0 d ± 0.28
33.2 a ± 3.1
‘Tereza’
‘Boambe de
Cotnari’
‘Ştefan’
20.4 cd ± 0.1
5.8 d ± 0.4
0.3 a ± 0.0
4.9 a ± 0.2
20.3 a ± 0.9
22.9 a ± 0.1
7.4 a ± 0.1
0.3 ab ± 0.1
3.7 bcd ± 0.8
28.0 a ± 6.2
21.2 b ± 0.9
6.7 bc ± 0.9
0.3 a ± 0.1
4.9 ab ± 1.9
22.2 a ± 8.4
Physical properties of fruits (i.e. width and weight, stone weight, stone
percentage, and fruit:stone ratio) are presented as mean values with standard deviation
in Table 3. Width ranged between 17–23 mm and weight ranged between 3.9–7.4 g.
344
The biggest fruits were found in cultivars ‘Bucium’, ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ and ‘Maria’.
They do not differ significantly in properties, but do differ significantly in relationship
with all other varieties. In contrast, ‘Cetăţuia’ had significantly smaller fruit as against
all other cultivars.
The stone size of the studied sweet cherry cultivars ranged from 0.1–0.4 g, while
stone percentage was between 2.9–5.0%. The lowest value was recorded for ‘Cetăţuia’
and the higher for ‘Bucium’, but differences among ‘Bucium’, ‘Cătălina’, ‘Tereza’ and
‘Ştefan’ were statistically non-significant.
Fruit:stone ratio was between 20.3 and 34.6. The lowest values were recorded by
‘Tereza’ and ‘Bucium’ and the highest by ‘Maria’ and ‘Cetăţuia’.
Chemical properties of fruits as average values with standard deviation are
presented in Table 4. Soluble solids content was between 14.5 °Brix (at ‘Golia’ and
‘Ştefan’) and 17.8 °Brix (at ‘Boambe de Cotnari’). ‘Bucium’, ‘Cătălina’, ‘Maria’,
‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Tereza’ did not differ significantly from ‘Boambe de Cotnari’.
Table 4. Chemical properties of the sweet cherry cultivars (SD = standard deviation; SC =
soluble solids content; RSC = reducing sugars content; TA = titratable acidity; AC =
antioxidant capacity. Different letters after the number corresponds with statistically significant
differences for P 5% - Duncan test).
Average 2008–09 ± SD
‘Bucium’
RSC
(g glucose
SSC
equivalent
(ºBrix)
100 g-1
fresh fruit)
ab
15.6 ± 0.4
9.5 a ± 0.1
‘Cătălina’
15.7 ab ± 0.1
11.3 a ± 2.4
0.5 c ±0.2
17.9 a ±2.5
6.7 a ±3.5
‘Maria’
16.4 ab ± 0.3
11.6 a ± 0.1
0.8 ab ±0.2
15.4 a ±3.1
7.8 a ±1.8
‘Golia’
14.5 b ± 1.6
9.9 a ± 1.6
0.6 c ±0.1
16.8 a ±0.2
7.6 a ±1.8
‘Cetăţuia’
15.7 ab ± 1.6
12.1 a ± 3.2
0.6 c ±0.1
19.3 a ±3.5
9.6 a ±1.3
‘Tereza’
‘Boambe de
Cotnari’
‘Ştefan’
16.4 ab ± 0.6
10.8 a ± 1.8
0.9 a ±0.1
12.9 a ±2.9
12.1 a ±1.7
17.8 a ± 2.1
11.5 a ± 3.8
0.7 b ±0.1
16.2 a ±7.4
15.0 a ±1.9
14.5 b ± 1.1
12.2 a ± 2.7
0.8 ab ±0.1
15.8 a ±4.5
18.6 a ±2.4
Cultivar
TA
(g malic acid
100 g-1
fresh fruit)
0.9a ±0.2
AC
(mg ascorbic
RSC : TA
acid equivalent
ratio
100 mL-1
extract)
a
11.4 ±2.1
4.2 a ±2.6
Reducing sugars content was between 9.5 and 12.2 g glucose equivalent 100 g-1
fresh fruit. Lowest values were recorded for ‘Golia’and ‘Bucium’ while ‘Ştefan’ and
‘Cetăţuia’ recorded the highest. However, differences between cultivars were nonsignificant statistically. Titratable acidity varied significantly between 0.5 and 0.9 g
malic acid 100 g-1 fruit weight, ‘Cătălina’ and ‘Golia’ having the lowest values and
‘Tereza’ and ‘Bucium’ the highest. Reducing sugar content : titratable acidity ratio was
between 11.4–19.3, the lowest values being recorded for ‘Tereza’ and ‘Bucium’ and
the highest for ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’, which are very early cultivars. The
antioxidant capacity of fruit extract ranged between 4.2 and 18.6 mg ascorbic acid
100 mL-1 extract, the highest values being determined at ‘Bucium’ and ‘Cătălina’ and
345
the lowest at ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ and ‘Stefan’. Differences between cultivars were
non-significant statistically.
Correlations of the number of days from full bloom to maturity (NDFBM) and the
physico-chemical properties of the fruits of cultivars studied were tested and
correlation index values (r) were included in Table 5.
Table 5. Relationships (r) between number of days from full bloom to maturity (NDFBM) and
physico-chemical properties of fruit’s sweet cherry cultivars. The testing of correlation
coefficient significance was done by F- test; ns = non-significant, * = significant (p ≤ 0.05),
** = distinct significant (p ≤ 0.01), *** = very significant (p ≤ 0.001).
Physical properties
Fruit width
Fruit weight
Stone weight
Stone percentage
Fruit : stone ratio
R
Chemical
properties
r
0.904 **
0.893 **
0.538 ns
0.324 ns
-0.093 ns
RSC
SSC
TA
RSC : TA
AC
-0.275 ns
0.314ns
0.482 ns
-0.493 ns
0.201ns
We found that there was a significant positive relationship between NDFBM and
fruit width (r = 0.904, F = 26.88, p = 0.0020) and also between NDFBM and fruit
weight (r = 0.893, F = 23.75, p = 0.0028), which means that the higher the NDFBM,
the higher the dimension. Positive correlations were also recorded between NDFBM
and stone size, stone percentage, SSC, TA and antioxidant capacity but were nonsignificant. In contrast, fruit:stone ratio, RSC and RSC:TA ratio were negatively
correlated with NDFBM, but non-significant.
At the international level, cherry cultivars with large fruits (in both width and
weight) are increasingly valued (Lichev et al., 2004; Long et al., 2008). According to
Apostol (2005), in Hungary, sweet cherry fruits of 23–25 mm width (e.g. ‘Sandor’ or
‘Rita’) are considered of medium size, and those between 27–32 mm width (e.g.
‘Carmen’, ‘Aida’) are large to very large. The cited author reported that some new
sweet cherry cultivars from Hungary range in size from 23–32 mm. In Spain, Tudela et
al. (2005) reported new sweet cherry with fruits up to 25 mm width, while Millan &
Charlot (2005) showed those in France range in size from 26–30 mm.
Lichev et al. (2004), assessing the weight of fruits of the latest sweet cherry
cultivars introduced in Bulgaria, found that cultivars with the heaviest fruits were
‘Celeste’ and ‘Regina’ of 10.0 g and 9.9 g respectively, while some cultivars
considered most common in the Bulgarian assortment had smaller fruits (e.g.: ‘Lapins’
– 7.6 g, ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ – 8.4 g, and ‘Van’ – 7.6 g). However, some new sweet
cherry cultivars with a medium weight are also reported nowadays from Estonia, i.e.
‘Iputj’ (6.5 g) and ‘Jurgita’ (6.0 g) (Jänes et al., 2010).
In this context, some cultivars investigated in this paper can be considered among
cultivars with small fruits (e.g. ‘Cetăţuia’, ‘Cătălina’, ‘Tereza’, ‘Golia’), while the
others (e.g. ‘Maria’, ‘Bucium’, ‘Boambe de Cotnari’) are of medium width and weight.
At very early and early cultivars (e.g. ‘Bigarreau Burlat’, ‘Rivan’, ‘Muncheberger
fruhe’), fruit weight is generally lower, ranging between 2 g and 5.5 g (Petre, 2006;
Radičević et al., 2011). Therefore these cultivars are admitted into the first category of
346
quality with fruits at least 16 mm in width and a weight of at least 5 g (Beceanu &
Benea, 2001). This is also the case of some cultivars studied in this paper (e.g.
‘Cetăţuia’, and ‘Cătălina’). However, Simard (2005) showed that some early cultivars
like ‘Primulat Ferprim’, ‘Earlise Rivedel’ have an average size of 24–27 mm.
According to UNECE Standard (2007), a fruit of 26 mm in width is admissible into the
first quality category, regardless of the ripening period.
It was found that there is no positive relationship between fruit and stone
dimension (Webster & Looney, 1996; Neri et al., 2005). However, Webster &
Looney (1996) show that the stone volume is proportional to the total volume of fruit
and ranges from 7.2% in ‘Napoleon’ to 10.6% in ‘Spanish Yellow’. Neri et al. (2005),
show that the fruit:stone ratio was very high in the ‘Summit’ 23 g g-1, ‘Durone Nero II’
22 g g-1, ‘Sweet Heart’ 17 g g-1 and ‘Ferovia’ 15.5 g g-1 and the lowest value is
determined in ‘Adriana’ 5.5 g g-1. The values we recorded have intermediate values
compared with previous similar studies.
SSC recorded with the refractometrical method depends on the cultivar. For
instance, according to Webster et al. (1996), ‘Bing’ had a content of 19–20 °Brix,
while ‘Lambert’ had 18–19 °Brix, and ‘Van’ about 15 °Brix, although all these
cultivars had the same conditions in orchards from Washington State, USA. Neri et al.
(2005), in two years study of ten sweet cherry cultivars from the Italian varieties,
shows that the highest value of SSC was recorded at ‘Van’ and ‘Durone Nero II’,
which had more than 18 °Brix, while ‘Celeste’ had the lowest value (13.2 °Brix). San
Martino et al. (2008) recorded values SSC over 20 °Brix at some cultivars as
‘Sweetheart’ (21.0 °Brix), ‘Kordia’ (20.0 °Brix) and ‘Van’ (21.9 °Brix) while ‘Lapins’
and ‘Bing’ had lower values (16.8 °Brix and 15.5 °Brix, respectively). The values
recorded in our study were intermediate compared with previous similar studies.
The reducing sugar content (RSC) is also different depending upon cultivars.
Some sweet cherry cultivars are known to have high RSC values (over 11%):
‘Bigarreau Esperen’, ‘Hedelfinger’, ‘Germersdorf’ (Gherghi et al., 2001). In our study,
RSC values had intermediate levels (9.5–12.2 g glucose equivalent 100 g-1 fresh fruit),
in relation to previous similar studies (Gherghi et al., 2001, Radičević et al., 2011).
‘Ştefan’, ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Maria’ recorded higher values compared with ‘Boambe de
Cotnari’, the cultivar taken as control. According to Radičević et al. (2011), titratable
acidity (TA) ranges between 0.3–0.7 g malic acid 100 g-1 fruit weight in sweet cherries
and depends on the cultivar and climatic conditions of the year.
Values found by us partially overlap with those indicated above, ranging between
0.5–0.9 g malic acid 100 g-1 fruit weight. The new cultivars ‘Tereza’ and ‘Bucium’
recorded statistically significantly higher values compared with ‘Boambe de Cotnari’, a
widespread Romanian cultivar. Tudela et al. (2005) found that acidity can increase
during ripening and Neri et al. (2003) consider that the maturity index could be at
values of acidity 0.96 meq 10 mL-1 in ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ and 1.31 meq 10 mL-1 to
‘Van’. RSC:TA ratio determines the taste of fruit for fresh consumption so it is
important to know the optimal values of this parameter for each cultivar (Webster et
al., 1996). In some sweet cherry cultivars from Serbia, the RSC:TA ratio ranged from
28.3 at ‘Regina’ to 16.4 at ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ (Radičević et al., 2011). The values in
this report obtained from cultivars we studied are somewhat lower (between 11.4 and
19.3) than those above mentioned, but ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’ are more valuable
compared with ‘Bigarreau Burlat’ in this regard.
347
Antioxidant capacity is strongly influenced by fruit type (depending on species
and cultivar within the species), the cultivation system, climatic conditions, but the
duration and the technique of preservation of fruits are crucial (Battino et al., 2004).
Antioxidant capacity is also determined by the biochemical characteristics of each
cultivar. In addition, Vangdal & Slimestad (2006) showed that the values of
antioxidant capacity can be very different in the same cultivar according to the
methods of determination used. Usenik et al. (2008) analyzed the antioxidant capacity
of 13 cherry cultivars expressed as ascorbic acid equivalent and registered values
between c 8.0–17.2 mg 100 g-1 fruit weight, the highest content being in ‘Bigarreau
Burlat’ and the lowest in ‘Lala Star’. Among the cultivars in our study, two had the
highest antioxidant capacity, namely ‘Ştefan’, a new cultivar (18.6 mg ascorbic acid
equivalent 100 mL-1 extract) and ‘Boambe de Cotnari‘ from the traditional assortment
(15.0 mg ascorbic acid equivalent 100 mL-1 extract).
The antioxidant capacity of sweet cherries is superior compared with apples or
pears but has much lower values than species with small fruits such as the strawberry,
raspberry or blueberry (Battino et al., 2004; Serrano et al., 2005; Coşofreţ et al., 2006;
Khanizadeh et al., 2007; Koca & Karadeniz, 2009).
CONCLUSIONS
Our research results showed a great variability in the physico-chemical properties
between sweet cherry cultivars. Among eight investigated sweet cherry cultivars the
following provide a wide range of valuable characteristics: ‘Cetăţuia’ and ‘Cătălina’
for very early ripening time, ‘Ştefan’ for high level of antioxidant capacity and
‘Bucium’ and ‘Boambe de Cotnari’ for large fruit size. A highly significant
relationship has been observed between the number of days from full bloom until fruit
maturation and fruit size. Chemical properties and antioxidant capacity are specific to
each cultivar and are non-significant in relationship to the number of days from full
bloom until fruit maturation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. This study has partially been financed by the Romanian Academy
of Agriculture and Forestry, Grant No. 119/2011, with title ‘Identification of fruit tree
genotypes tolerant to heat, water and biotic stress, suitable to specific technological systems of
sustainable agriculture’.
REFERENCES
Apostol, J. 2005. New Sweet Cherry Varieties and Selections in Hungary. Proc. 4th Int. Sym.
Cherry, Acta Hort. 667, 59–63.
Battino, M., Scalzo, J., Capocasa, F., Palandrani, A. & Mezzetti, B. 2004. Fragole e
antiossidanti: un primato nutrizionale. Frutticoltura 4, 54–56.
Beceanu, D. 2008. Antioxidizing properties of fruits and vegetables. Lucr. st. USAMV Iasi,
Seria Horticult. 51, 925–930.
Beceanu, D. & Benea, E. 2001. Professional guide for fresh fruits and vegetables. Edit.
Autograph, Iasi, 253 pp., (in Romanian).
Beceanu, D. & Sîrbu, S. 2007. European criteria to appreciate the cherries’ qualities. Lucr. st.
U.A.S. Moldova, Chisinau, pp. 306–309.
348
Budan, S. & Grădinariu, G. 2000. Sweet Cherry Tree. Edit. Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Iasi,
262 pp., (in Romanian).
Ceapoiu, N. 1968. Statistical methods applied in agricultural and biological experiments. Edit.
Agro-Silvică, Bucureşti, 550 pp., (in Romanian).
Coşofreţ, S., Beceanu, D. & Radu, R.M. 2006. Studies for determining and identifying the
content of antocyanic pigments in some species of wild fruits originated in Neamţ County.
Rev. Cercetări Agronomice în Moldova 1(125), 51–58.
Gherghi, A., Burzo, I., Bibicu, M., Mărgineanu, L. & Bădulescu, L. 2001. Biochemistry and
physiology of vegetables and fruits. Bucureşti, Edit. Academiei Române, 328 pp.,
(in Romanian).
Ghimicescu, G. 1977. Chemistry and wood, drinks and spices. Edit. Junimea Iasi. 315. pp.,
(in Romanian).
Jänes, H., Ardel, P., Kahu, K., Kelt, K. & Kikas, A. 2010. Some biological properties and fruit
quality parameters of new sweet cherry cultivars and perspective selections. Agron. Res.
8(Special Issue III), 583–588.
Kalyoncu, I.H., Ersoy, N. & Yilmaz, M. 2009. Some physico-chemical properties and mineral
contents of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) type grown in Konya. Afr. J. Biotechnol.
8(12), 2744–2749.
Khanizadeh, S., Tsao, R., Rekika, D. & DeEll, J.R. 2007. Phenolic composition and antioxidant
activity of selected apple genotypes. J. Food, Agric. Environ.(JFAE) 5(1), 61–66.
Koca, I. & Karadeniz, B. 2009. Antioxidant properties of blackberry and blueberry fruits grown
in the Black Sea Region of Turkey. Sci Hort 121, 447–450.
Lichev, V., Govedarov, G., Tabakov, S. & Yordanov, A. 2004. Evaluation of sweet cherry
cultivars recently introduced into Bulgaria compared with two Bulgarian cultivars.
J. Fruit Ornament. Plant Res. 12, 281–285.
Long, L.E., Núñez-Elisea, R. & Cahn, H. 2008. Evaluation of sweet cherry cultivars and
advanced selections adapted to the Pacific Northwest, USA. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 795, 255–
260.
Millan, M. & Charlot, G. 2005. Nouvelles variétés de cerise. Une gamme large et prometteuse.
Infos-Ctifl 210, 12–15.
Neri, F., Donati, I., Gualanduzzi, S., Brigati, S. & Bertolini, P. 2005. Qualità, serbevolezza e
suscettibilità alle alterazioni di cultivar di ciliegio. Frutticoltura 3, 30–34.
Pellegrini, N., Colombi, B., Salvatore, S., Brenna, O.V., Galaverna, G., Del Rio, D., Bianchi,
M., Bennett, R.N. & Brighenti, F. 2007. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity of some fruit
and vegetable foods: efficiency of extraction of a sequence of solvents. J. Sci. Food Agric.
87, 103–111.
Pérez-Sánchez, R., Gómez-Sánchez, M.Á. & Morales-Corts, M.R. 2010. Description and
quality evaluation of sweet cherries cultured in Spain. J. Food Quality 33, 490–506.
Petre, L. 2006. Developement perspective of cherry plantations. Studies and Research on Rural
Economy, Edit. Terra Nostra 4 (1), 37–39 (in Romanian).
Petre, L., Sîrbu, S. & Iurea, E. 2007. Physical, chemical and technological features of fruits for
the cherry breeds and hybrid elites created at SCDP. Iasi, Romania. Lucr. st. USAMV Iasi,
Seria Horticult. 50, 603–610.
Popov, I.N. & Lewin, G. 1994. Photochemiluminescent detection of antiradical activity: II.
Testing of non-enzymatic water-soluble antioxidants. Free Radical Biol. Med. 17, 267–
271.
Rababah, T.M., Al-Mahasneh, A.M., Kilani, I., Yang, W., Alhamad, M.N., Ereifeja, K. &
Al-u’datt, M. 2011. Effect of jam processing and storage on total phenolics, antioxidant
activity and anthocyanins of different fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 91(6), 1096–1102.
349
Radičević, S., Cerović, R., Mitrović, M., Mitrović, O., Lukić, M., Marić, S. & Milošević, N.
2011. Biological properties of introduced sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars.
Zbornik Radova 3, 173–181.
Raimondo, A., Motisi, A., Campisi, G., Cutuli, M., Occorso, G., Marchese, A., Caruso, T.,
Cartabellota, D., Zappia, R. & Tobutt, K. 2006. Le cultivar siciliene di ciliegio dolce:
aspetti fenologici, morfologici e genetico-moleculari. Frutticoltura 9, 44–49.
Roselli, G., Mariotti, P., Castellari, L., Mulinacci, N., Giaccherini, C. & Castellani, S. 2006.
Caratterizzazione morfo-fisiologica e delle proprietà salutistiche di cultivar di ciliegio
toscane ed umbre. Frutticoltura 9, 50–53.
San Martino, L., Manavella, F.A., García, D.A. & Salato, G. 2008. Phenology and fruit quality
of nine sweet cherry cultivars in South Patagonia. Proc. 5th Int. Sym. Cherry, Acta Hort.
(ISHS) 795, 841–848.
Saunier, R. 1996. The study and selection of sweet cherry cultivars under French conditions.
Proc. Int. Cherry Sym. Acta Hort.(ISHS) 410, 37–41.
Serrano, M., Guillen, F., Martinez-Romero, D., Castillo, S. & Valero, D. 2005. Chemical
constituents and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry at different ripening stages. J. Agric.
Food Chem. 53(7), 2741–2745.
Simard, V. 2005. Il faut bien choisir ces varietes. Réussir Fruits and Légumes 245, 50–53.
Simard, V. & Charlot, G. 2000. Variétés. L’horizon s’éclaircit. Réussir Fruits and Légumes,
185, 26–28.
Simčič, M., Zavrtanik, M. & Hribar, J. 1998. Biochemical and morphological changes in
cherries during maturation and ripening. Proc. 3th Cherry Sym. Acta Hort. ISHS
461, 725–730.
Šimunić, V., Kovač, S., Gašo-Sokač, D., Pfannhauser, W. & Murkovic, M. 2005. Determination
of anthocyanins in four Croatian cultivars of sour cherries (Prunus cerasus L.). Eur. Food
Res Tech. 220, 5–6.
Sîrbu, S., Beceanu, D., Anghel, R.M. & Zănoagă, C.V. 2008 (a). The valuation of some
technological features of fruits at two new sweet cherry cultivars. Lucr. st. USAMV
Bucureşti, Seria B 51, 374–377.
Sîrbu, S., Beceanu, D., Corneanu, G., Petre, L., Anghel, R. M., Niculaua, M. & Zănoagă, C.V.
2008 (b). Analitical data concerning the fruits of some sweet cherry cultivars obtained at
Fruit Growing Development Station Iasi. Lucr. st. USAMV Iasi, Seria Horticult. 51, 743–
749.
Statistical Yearbook of Romania. 2008. Available on-line at http://www.insse.ro/
Tudela, J.A., Luchsinger, L., Artés-Hdez, F. & Artés, F. 2005. ‘Ambrunes’ sweet cherry quality
factors change during ripening. Proc.4th Int. Sym. Cherry, Acta Hort. ISHS 2005,
667, 529–534.
UNECE Standard, 2007. FFV-13 concerning the marketing and commercial quality control of
cherries. New York, Geneva, 7 pp.
Usenik, V., Fabčič, J. & Štampar, F. 2008. Sugars, organic acids, phenolic composition and
antioxidant activity of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Food Chem. 107(1), 185–192.
Vangdal, E. & Slimestad, R. 2006. Methods to determine antioxidative capacity in fruit. J. Fruit
Ornament. Plant Res. 14(2), 123–131.
Webster, A.D. & Looney, N.E. 1996. Cherries: crop physiology, production and uses. CAB
International, Wallingford, Oxon, U.K. 513 pp.
350